Day: January 26, 2013

It’s been a very bad week for the “feminists” and the pro-abortion movement. In the week that has seen willfully ignorant women across the United States “celebrate” the 40th anniversary of dreadful Roe V. Wade decision, which paved the road for some 55,000,000 unborn children to be aborted since, we also saw reality intrude as we read one militant abortion advocate inadvertently expose the hypocrisy of her fellow “right to choose” pals. And not just their flaming and outrageous two-faced nature, but the type of cold-blooded cruelty towards “unequal life” that would have made racist eugenicist & Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger extremely proud. “All life is not equal,” wrote Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams, and yes an unborn life indeed “can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. ” Furthermore, she went on, her sisters in abortion solidarity needed to stop with the nonsensical arguments about when life begins:

When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.

This window on the inner workings of the liberal female “feminist” mind on the issue of abortion might have been ugly to see, but it was necessary. It’s extremely important that we have these moments where advocates of terminating the life of an unborn child – our nation’s most innocent and vulnerable – via inhumane “procedures” they’d passionately argue were “cruel and unusual punishment” if used on a heinous death row inmate, be exposed. Pro-lifers like yours truly can expose them all day long, but until the words come out of their own mouths, most people don’t listen or don’t believe that what you’ve said about the abortion lobby position can possibly be true in a civilized society.

But it is.

Not only is this the case for liberal female “feminists”, but for liberal males who know better than to argue against such a powerful group (when they with them, which most don’t) and who instead seek to placate them and kiss their a**es by way of advocating a “hands off, no questioned asked, no debate needed” policy towards the issue of “a woman’s right to choose.” And we have no better example of that than MSDNC’s Toure, who yesterday did his duty as a self-loathing liberal male to pay homage to the pro-choice movement by sharing his own experience on the issue of abortion. Toure probably thought he was making a powerful case by masquerading as a proponent of “responsible family planning” but inadvertently revealed just how irresponsible his position – which is essentially a “get out of jail free” card for the types of irresponsible men “feminists” preach against – actually is. The Blaze provides a short recap, but I’ll go into more detail on his comments later (hat tip: Twitchy Team):

During MSNBC’s “The Cycle” on Friday, co-host Toure celebrated the 40th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion by telling the story of when he and an old girlfriend decided to have an abortion 15 years ago.

“In some ways that choice saved my life,” Toure said.

He said he was extremely thankful abortion was an option because wasn’t ready to be a dad and going through with the pregnancy would have just made “a mess of three lives” because she “wasn’t the one.”

“I thank God and country that when I fell into a bad situation, abortion was there to save me and keep me on a path toward building a strong family I have now. And I pray that safety net stays in place,” Toure said.

Being able to choose to have an abortion makes for a “stronger America,” he concluded.

He starts off by saying 15 years ago he was in a “committed relationship” with someone who “wasn’t the one” and then one day “she got pregnant.” In reality, “they” got pregnant – because it takes two for that to happen (will someone tell that to Toure, please?). But his use of the word “she” rather than “they” is key, because it seemingly absolves him of any responsibility for the situation they both found themselves in which they later “took care of” via an abortion. He says when he found out she was pregnant, that he was “terrified” and “always knew the importance” of the two-parent family after being raised by two parents who loved him very much. So if he had always “known the importance” of having a stable two-parent family then why have irresponsible sex with a “not the one” woman when you know what the consequences can be? Surely even 15 years ago with all the information out there available, both he and his “not the one” girlfriend knew this?

He said that, in essence, when “we” (note how he switched to “we” when it made him sound like he was being responsible for his actions) “had an abortion”, in some ways “the decision saved” his life (really. Saved HIS life. At the expense of taking someone else’s). He stated that he was “not man enough” to raise a child and that he would have made a “mess of three lives” so it was better that one of the lives was terminated (so as to save it from his commitment to continued irresponsibility or something).

He went on to say that later on in his life he met a woman, and when they decided to have a family together, he went with her to all the doctor appointments and watched the baby grow inside her. Seeing the ultrasounds and feeling the baby move caused him to be at war with his “commitment” to the pro-choice movement because he saw the “human side” of the baby via the ultrasounds and movements. His exact words were that his devotion to a “woman’s right to choose” was “jostled” by the images and movements. But the best quote from him on the planned pregnancy is this one:

“It was life colliding with a belief system.”

In other words, the reality of the situation, of the life growing and developing inside his mother’s womb, didn’t match up with what he had been brainwashed to believed by years of listening to feminists re-frame the argument as to one of being about a ‘woman’s body/health” rather than the life growing inside it. But ultimately, even though he saw the “human side” of the “planned” baby, especially during the second trimester, he wasn’t going to let a little thing like the facts interrupt his “belief system” in a woman’s right to “choose” to snuff that life out via procedures designed to take the little body apart piece by piece, or literally suck the breath right out of it.

“There is a reasonable UNSOLVABLE (really?) debate about when life begins,” he adamantly stated, apparently forgetting how he viewed the unborn baby he and his (wife? g/f?) decided to have in advance. “But it’s still misogynist to deny a woman dominion over her own body,” he spouted defiantly, and why wouldn’t he? Allowing a woman “dominion over her own body” allowed him to get away with being irresponsible for his own poor decisions 15 years ago. Of course he’s going to be ok with it. Because it’s important to liberals like him for the male to get away with his role in an unplanned pregnancy without any consequences. “Feminists” have argued this position for years on behalf of other women, and here was Toure arguing for the “male” side in the debate, the very male side that “feminists” wrongly argue are “fully” responsible for the pregnancy happening in the first place.

He then bizarrely went on to explain that, supposedly, in states where the abortion rate is higher, the divorce rate is lower – as if the alleged direct correlation means anything in the real world where an unborn child’s life hangs in the balance as the woman gets to decide whether or not she wants to keep it. He then cites stats (which I have not verified, but will go along with for purposes of discussion) that 40% of children born in America are born to one parent not two. However, instead of him praising the women for deciding to keep their babies, he insinuates they’d have been better off aborted rather than be raised in a one parent family.

Which brings up my next question: What about situations where the pregnancy IS planned, but the father is not around in the end?

My mother, who had already had two children from a previous marriage, was married to my biological father when they became pregnant with me. It was a planned pregnancy. They were not together anymore by the time she had me. That made her a single parent of three at the time of my birth. Two years later she married my dad and they have been together ever since. Decades later, I think both me and my sisters turned out ok. But in the deluded world of Toure, my mother would have been better off aborting me rather than giving birth, because there was no father around at the time. He would have advocated for taking my chance at life away because there was no second parent at the time to offer me a balanced home life.

While I agree it’s ideal for a child to be raised in a stable, loving two-parent environment right from the start, it serves no purpose other than the selfish, self-serving purposes Toure advocates on behalf of males and females everywhere to punish the child for the decision the parents made to not have safe sex – whether the baby was planned or not. Give that unborn child a chance. Even if the child is born to a single mother, chances are one day the woman will marry and the child will have a father – and will continue to have the chance at living a productive, fulfilling life that the likes of Toure and Mary Elizabeth Williams would have denied him or her.

In closing, I’d ask two questions of Toure, one of which I already know the answer to.

1) At what fetal development stage was your unwanted unborn child when you and your “not the one” girlfriend decided to stop its life?

2) What was the biological difference between the pregnancy from the “not the one” girlfriend and the pregnancy from “the one” girlfriend? Answer: The fact that you and “the one” wanted that baby. It’s as simple as that.

Honestly, knowing the sheer moral bankruptcy of their position on life and abortion, I don’t know how pro-aborts can sleep comfortably at night. I pray that God shows them the light somehow, some way, as He showed me on this issue – and the sooner the better. The longer you hold the pro-choice position, the harder it is to absolve yourself from the guilt you feel when you snap out of it. I know. I’ve been there.